Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Mar '13 13:36
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWXGk86sc8o
  2. 10 Mar '13 01:20
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWXGk86sc8o
    Any reason to conclude this lady should not?
  3. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    10 Mar '13 02:52
    By naming this thread the way he did the OP displays his ageism, which is every bit as obnoxious as all the other -isms. Seniors should be allowed to drive until their licences are withdrawn FOR CAUSE, just like any other person who is granted a licence.
  4. Standard member leestatic
    Hristos voskrese
    10 Mar '13 03:06
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Any reason to conclude this lady should not?
    Not signaling when pulling out?
  5. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    10 Mar '13 04:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by leestatic
    Not signaling when pulling out?
    That rates a penalty, not a licence withdrawal. At any age.
  6. 10 Mar '13 05:19
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    That rates a penalty, not a licence withdrawal. At any age.
    So we have to wait until the centenarian kills/injures themselves or others before we decide they no longer have the faculties required of a driver?

    Or can we require them to take a regular medical as we do 'heavy goods vehicle' drivers of any age in the UK ?

    The short answer to to OP question is yes of course they should, but they should also be protected against some of the more invidious conditions that tend to accompany the passing of years.
  7. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    10 Mar '13 06:09 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    So we have to wait until the centenarian kills/injures themselves or others before we decide they no longer have the faculties required of a driver?

    Or can we require them to take a regular medical as we do 'heavy goods vehicle' drivers of any age in the UK ?

    The short answer to to OP question is yes of course they should, but they should also be prot ...[text shortened]... ted against some of the more invidious conditions that tend to accompany the passing of years.
    If the person was 35 years old, would we have to wait until they kill/injure themselves or others before we decide they are unfit to hold a licence? One rule for all. Require a regular medical? Sure, for everyone. Let's not just pick on one group - what about people who take lifelong medication, do they suddenly become unfit on a particular birthday? ONE RULE FOR ALL. If you're fit to hold a licence, and you have one, you should not have it taken away from you without cause. A birthday is not cause.
  8. 10 Mar '13 06:25
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    If the person was 35 years old, would we have to wait until they kill/injure themselves or others before we decide they are unfit to hold a licence? One rule for all. Require a regular medical? Sure, for everyone. Let's not just pick on one group - what about people who take lifelong medication, do they suddenly become unfit on a particular birthday? ONE ...[text shortened]... have one, you should not have it taken away from you without cause. A birthday is not cause.
    You are being silly, are you saying that a 35yr is as likely to have a faculty impairment as an 85yr old, if regular medicals for drivers over a certain age were brought in it would be ONE RULE FOR ALL because unless you are unlucky enough to die young then the rule would pertain to you.

    Btw the idea that 'Ageism' is as obnoxious as 'Racism' is obnoxious in itself.
  9. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    10 Mar '13 06:42
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    You are being silly, are you saying that a 35yr is as likely to have a faculty impairment as an 85yr old, if regular medicals for drivers over a certain age were brought in it would be [b]ONE RULE FOR ALL because unless you are unlucky enough to die young then the rule would pertain to you.

    Btw the idea that 'Ageism' is as obnoxious as 'Racism' is obnoxious in itself.[/b]
    My mother-in-law, a 93-year-old fit and active farmer, has recently had her life ruined by a pompous idiot at the local authority who considers nobody over 60 should hold a licence. The professional tester (who trains other licence testers) gave her a two-hour test and said she was a healthier, safer and more competent driver than almost all the people he'd had to give licences to. It's people like you who allow that pompous idiot to say a person is unfit to hold a licence based solely on birthdate.

    Having a medical at licence renewal date wouldn't bother me one bit, if everyone had to do it whatever their age it would be fair. I don't want incapable drivers on the road any more than you do, but even drug addicts and alcoholics get to keep their hard-earned driving licences unless they're caught driving unsafely. You appear to be saying it's a crime just to get older.

    btw, that sneer about ageism compared to racism is beneath contempt. I said "all the other isms", of which racism is the nastiest but by no means the only one.
  10. 10 Mar '13 06:58
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    My mother-in-law, a 93-year-old fit and active farmer, has recently had her life ruined by a pompous idiot at the local authority who considers nobody over 60 should hold a licence. The professional tester (who trains other licence testers) gave her a two-hour test and said she was a healthier, safer and more competent driver than almost all the people he'd ...[text shortened]... said "all the other isms", of which racism is the nastiest but by no means the only one.
    Anyone not permitted to drive solely on account of age, should be allowed to call their country's equivalent of 911, for a free ride to wherever they want, within, say, 25 miles.
  11. 10 Mar '13 09:07
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    By naming this thread the way he did the OP displays his ageism, which is every bit as obnoxious as all the other -isms. Seniors should be allowed to drive until their licences are withdrawn FOR CAUSE, just like any other person who is granted a licence.
    assuming you aren't joking, right now the system is flawed. CAUSE means the ancient one just ran over a kid or several. CAUSE means the soon to be expired one didn't have the reflexes to avoid an accident.


    if you would be required every 2 years to retake the exam and prove you are capable of driving, fine. let them drive for as long as they can take the test. right now, they let everyone drive until they fuk up.
  12. 10 Mar '13 09:10
    Originally posted by JS357
    Anyone not permitted to drive solely on account of age, should be allowed to call their country's equivalent of 911, for a free ride to wherever they want, within, say, 25 miles.
    public transportation exists. so no.

    now if you would be disabled, arthritis or whatever, sure the government could spring for cabs or a professional driver. but then you aren't supposed to be driving anyway.
  13. 10 Mar '13 09:13
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    If the person was 35 years old, would we have to wait until they kill/injure themselves or others before we decide they are unfit to hold a licence? One rule for all. Require a regular medical? Sure, for everyone. Let's not just pick on one group - what about people who take lifelong medication, do they suddenly become unfit on a particular birthday? ONE ...[text shortened]... have one, you should not have it taken away from you without cause. A birthday is not cause.
    yes, we do wait until the person does something stupid to take away the licence. the kill/injure part is in the case that stupid also hurts someone else.



    in the case of an octogenarian, he/she could be driving at 40km an hour for several years to church and back and be lucky. all it takes is one bratty kid to jump in front of it (kids are stupid) and the octogenarian wouldn't have the reflexes to jump on the brakes.
  14. 10 Mar '13 17:10
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    public transportation exists. so no.

    now if you would be disabled, arthritis or whatever, sure the government could spring for cabs or a professional driver. but then you aren't supposed to be driving anyway.
    Where public transportation exists, agreed.

    I'd go for special rates or subsidies on taxicabs for people disallowed from driving on account of age. After all, disallowing a senior from driving solely on account of years alive, disables that person.
  15. 10 Mar '13 22:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    My mother-in-law, a 93-year-old fit and active farmer, has recently had her life ruined by a pompous idiot at the local authority who considers nobody over 60 should hold a licence. The professional tester (who trains other licence testers) gave her a two-hour test and said she was a healthier, safer and more competent driver than almost all the people he'd said "all the other isms", of which racism is the nastiest but by no means the only one.
    People like me! talk about pompous asses!

    It is absolutely clear from my posts that I would not agree to pulling someones licence solely on account of their age, but I do think it reasonable for us to agree that when we get to a certain age that we should submit to a basic medical so as to insure that we have not suffered an impairment to the faculties that allow us to drive a vehicle in a manner that is safe for us and other road users.

    This is what you said:-

    "his ageism, which is every bit as obnoxious as all the other -isms."

    To which I said:-

    "Btw the idea that 'Ageism' is as obnoxious as 'Racism' is obnoxious in itself."

    Then for some reason you claimed you actually said:-

    "btw, I said "all the other isms", of which racism is the nastiest but by no means the only one."

    after accusing my comment of being "beneath contempt".

    I notice in the UK the 'grey Power' lobbyists do not accuse anyone of being ageist when they are accepting their free bus pass or winter fuel allowance. etc etc..